Disposed

Anil Kumar Upadhyay v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Secondary Education U.P. Lko. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC16 Oct 2024/9438/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of two writ petitions regarding seniority disputes of Assistant Teachers. It directed the competent authority to decide the dispute after hearing all aggrieved parties and permitted further approach to this Court if dissatisfied with that decision.

What did the court decide?

Upper Judicial Court's decision is reserved to the competent authority to decide the dispute within four weeks.

Anil Kumar Upadhyay Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:69655

¶2

Court No. - 5

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9438 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Upadhyay

¶5

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Secondary Education U.P. Lko. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Mishra,Devesh Jaiswal,Pankaj Kumar,Piyush Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

And

¶7

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6576 of 2024

¶8

Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Pandey

¶9

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Secondary Edu. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Om Prakash Mani Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Manoj Kumar Mishra,Piyush Tripathi

¶10

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶11

1.Objections to the impleadment application filed in Writ-A No.6576 of 2024 are taken on record.

¶12

Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vivek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for respondents no.1 to 3, and Sri O.P.M. Tripathi, learned counsel, who files Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no.6, in Writ-A No.9438 of 2024.

¶13

No notice be issued to respondents no.4 and 5 taking into consideration the nature of order proposed to be passed.

¶14

It is contended that Writ-A No.6576 of 2024 in re: Ashok Kumar Pandey vs. State of U.P. and others also pertains to the same dispute as has arisen in the instant petition inasmuch as the order impugned in the instant petition dated 31.07.2024 has also been challenged in Writ-A No.6576 of 2024.

¶15

As such, the Court proceeds to decide both the petitions together.

¶16

Although learned counsels for the contesting parties namely Sri Manoj Kumar

¶17

Mishra, learned counsel appearing in Writ-A No.9438 of 2024 and Sri O.P.M. Tripathi, learned counsel appearing in Writ-A No.6576 of 2024 for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for respondent no.6 in Writ-A No.9438 of 2024 have argued at voluminous length but the crux of the issue as emerges from the arguments as have been raised by the learned counsels for the contesting parties including the State Counsel are that there is a dispute pertaining to the seniority of the post of Assistant Teachers working in Sri Lallanji Bramhchari Inter College Bharatpur, Ambedkar Nagar.

¶18

It is contended that as both the petitioners are aggrieved against the seniority list they can approach the respondent no.2 by way of an appeal.

¶19

8.It has further been contended that Sri Virendra Kumar Yadav whose name also finds place in the said seniority list has filed an appeal with the competent authority i.e. the Regional Deputy Director of Secondary Education, Ayodhya i.e. respondent no.2 pertaining to he being placed at a particular serial number in the said seniority list.

¶20

The filing of an appeal is also admitted by Sri Vivek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, on the basis of written instructions sent by the District Inspector of Schools, Ayodhya dated 10.11.2024.

¶21

A plea has been taken that as it is only Sri Virendra Kumar Yadav, who has filed an appeal, meaning thereby that it is only he who is aggrieved by he being placed in the said seniority list consequently there would not be any occasion for the petitioner herein and the respondent no.6 and the other persons who might be aggrieved by their placement in the said seniority list being heard by the respondent no.2 as no appeal has been filed by them.

¶22

Responding to that learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel states that once the appeal of Sri Virendra Kumar Yadav is pending for consideration before the competent authority consequently all the aggrieved persons may appear before the competent authority and may raise their grievance pertaining to their placement in the said seniority list and a final decision would be taken

¶23

accordingly,

¶24

Considering the aforesaid more particularly when both the petitions raise a challenge to the order dated 31.07.2024 which in turn pertains to a particular person being authorised to sign the mark sheets and certificates of the students and there is dispute pertaining to placement in the seniority list both by the petitioner herein and respondent no.6 as well as Sri Virendra Kumar Yadav consequently the petition is disposed of with a direction to the competent authority i.e. Joint Director of Secondary Education, Ayodhya/respondent no.2 to decide the dispute pertaining to the seniority of the petitioner, respondent no.6 as well as Sri Virendra Kumar Yadav and the other persons in accordance with law and the relevant rules.

¶25

Let such a decision be taken within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order after hearing all the parties concerned.

¶26

As the Court has not entered into the merits of the rival claims pertaining to the placement in the seniority list as such it would be open to the parties to approach this Court again in case they are aggrieved by the decision taken by the competent authority.

¶27

Till such time a decision is taken by the competent authority the situation as prevailing in the institution pertaining to verification of the certificates of the students and other matter would continue.

¶28

Order Date :- 16.10.2024 A. Katiyar

¶29

Digitally signed by :- AMIT KATIYAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Anil Kumar Upadhyay v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Secondary Education U.P. Lko. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar Upadhyay v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Secondary Education U.P. Lko. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Prabodh Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Deptt. of It and Electronics Lko and 2 Others

C/M Thru. Manager, Vivekanand Shiksha Niketan, Inter College at Nevarna and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Education ( Secondary) Lko. and 3 Others

Jeet Bahadur Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Education Lko and 4 Others

Ashok Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Secondary Edu. Lko. and 3 Others

Devaki Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Medical Education Lko and 2 Others

Arun Kumar Vs the Chief General Manager (Hr) State Bank of India Lko. and 2 Others